ZOT Surfaces of Cheney, in 1994, Warning That An Invasion of Iraq Would Lead to 'Quagmire'

Editor and Publisher ^ | August 12, 2007 | E&P Staff

[in pari delicto]

Here is the transcript. The YouTube address is at the end. *

Q: Do you think the U.S., or U.N. forces, should have moved into Baghdad?

A: No.

Q: Why not?

A: Because if we'd gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn't have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq.

Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it -- eastern Iraq -- the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.

It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.

The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families -- it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?

Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right.

[in pari delicto]

Youtube video

[bassmaner]

IBTZ

[Blogger]

Welcome, newbie!

[FormerLib]

Right, because Bush I was dedicated to the idea of a new world order where we were tied to the dictates of the UN forces.

When we finally did go in, we didn’t go in alone.

And welcome to Free Republic, by the way.

[bassmaner]

So that's what Cheney said in 1994. Big deal. What does that have to do with the situation on the ground NOW?

Cutting and running will still result in a bloodbath. Hindsight's 20/20, newbie.

[Jasper]

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

/jasper

[dfwgator]

Ever heard of 9/11? It was in all the papers.

[Paradox]

Interesting video, since, like, 1994 was just yesterday, and nothing major has happened since then..

[elc]

Oh goodie. I was just getting a little bored.

Bring on the kitties.

[Badeye]

Q: Do you think the U.S., or U.N. forces, should have moved into Baghdad?

A: No.

Q: Why not?

A: Because if we’d gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn’t have been anybody else with us.

Yep, ‘at that time’ he was correct.

More nations supported our invasion of Iraq this time around than supported Desert Storm as I recall.

[mnehrling]

Yea, and the world changes.. in 94 we were just off of defending an ally, now, we are defending ourselves. It changes our motivation and what we are willing to sacrifice in order to achieve the goal.

Roosevelt wanted to stay out of the European front in WWII, but the situations changed when Japan attacked us, it showed that the war was international. On top of that, he had to ally with Stalin in order to defeat Germany.

[wideawake]

You make an excellent point: geopolitical realities never change from minute to minute. The world is exactly the same now as it was yesterday and things were no different in 1993 than they were in 2003.

[rocksblues]

Bingo! Welcome to FR in.

[FormerLib]

Let loose the kitties!

[wideawake]

More nations supported our invasion of Iraq this time around than supported Desert Storm as I recall.

More nations supported us this time.

More importantly Pakistan and Saudi Arabia supported us fully this time.

Additionally, Hafez Assad died - which means that Syria did not intevene on Hussein's side, broadening the war.

Additionally, Turkey was busy trying to negotiate its way into the EU, and was not going to intervene in northern Iraq, broadening the war.

All in all, conditions in 2003 were radically different - and the need to act was far more pressing than in 1993.

[Badeye]

All in all, conditions in 2003 were radically different - and the need to act was far more pressing than in 1993.

Thats how I see it.

[dead]

That was the correct answer in 1994.

Not relevant to the situation in the 21st century though.

Try again later.

[usmcobra]

So what? Having Syrians and Egyptians on our hind flanks as we tried to invade Iraq would have been a recipe for disaster and despite our overwhelming numbers could have lead to a global war in the middle east.

Timing is everything, this time we didn’t invite the Muslims to join us there fore we protected our troops from some unfriendly friendly fire.

[BillyBoy]

In pari delicto - Member Since Aug 13, 2007

I smell ozone.

[John Farson]

Right, because it was only a matter of time before there was a mushroom cloud in a US city.

[in pari delicto]

Ever heard of 9/11? It was in all the papers.

Of the 19 hijackers:

Saudi Arabia - 15

United Arab Emirates - 2

Egypt - 1

Lebanon - 1

Iraq - 0

[PigRigger]

IBTZ!

[John Farson]

This would be a marked example of foresight.

[freekitty]

giggle. Now go back underneath the rock you came out from under. It’s way to hot today.

[Jeff Head]

Fact is, IMHO, in 1994 we should have gone downtown to Baghdad and had the will to defeat and occupy the country and remake it into a representative government just like we did with the Nazis and the IMperialist Japanese.

After 911, there was even more reason to do so.

We are going to have to, some day, turn the modern fanatical, radical ISlamics into good Muslims, just like we had to turn the NAzis into good Germans, and the IMperial Japanese into good Japanese.

Out only fault this time around was that we did not go in there seriously enough (IMHO) to passify the radicals and those that support them with extreme prejudice. I do not believe that you can fight a kinder, gentler war against people who simply want to see you dead, with your head dismembered from your body if possible, and those who support them, any more than we could have done so against Hitler or Tojo.

The time will come...when (again, IMHO) we will realize that we have to fight war against fanatics in the same manner as we fought that one (WWII)

[RightWhale]

There was, two decades ago, an article in Newsweek or Time about Saddam and his campaign to own the entire Arabian region. The complaint then was, “Who will quench his fire?” Yes, the same who are now Liberal Lefties and anti-Bush/Rove were concerned that Saddam was going to become powerful and control most of the world’s oil.

[Corin Stormhands]

[listenhillary]

9/11 happens

[xjcsa]

Of the 19 hijackers:

Saudi Arabia - 15

United Arab Emirates - 2

Egypt - 1

Lebanon - 1

Iraq - 0

Afghanistan - 0. So what?

[Waryone]

In before zot!

[dead]

Of the 19 hijackers:

Saudi Arabia - 15

Are you advocating a US war with Saudi Arabia? Would your position on that war vary depending on the party of the Commander-in-Chief at the time the war was launched?

Don’t bother answering. I know the answer better than you do.

[mnehrling]

Are you saying that isn’t a threat? If we weren’t there, everyone who hates us now would be playing tiddly winks. The 500 tons of Uranium we pulled out of Iraq would be used for ‘peaceful’ purposes? Yea.. unless our leaders have a magic time machine and were able to jump into the future and see what we found or didn’t find, I don’t want leaders second guessing every action after the fact. I want leaders who, when intelligence is laid out in front of them, act on it.. I doubt many people here would have done different than President Bush if we had the cards in our hand that he had.

[Responsibility2nd]

In before the...

[rottndog]

IB4TZ???

“Video Surfaces of Cheney, in 1994, Warning That An Invasion of Iraq Would Lead to ‘Quagmire’”

BFD!!! That was BEFORE 9-11-01, which forever changed the world in which we live.

Keep trying....LOSER!

[darkwing104]

Out of context troll....Do you like kitties.

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Viking Kitty/ZOT ping list!. . . don't be shy.

[wideawake]

Stupid argument.

0% of the suicide bombers in Israel have been Iraqis. That didn't prevent Saddam Hussein's government from paying each of their families $25,000 cash to finance and reward their acts of terrorism.

[Weeedley]

There were 500,000 troops on our side back then. We let Saddam stand and look at how history unfolded. That was a mistake back then. I remember George 41 on TV announcing that policy after relieving Kuwait and knew instinctively it was a bad move to leave Saddam in power. The terrorists were no doubt emboldened by our failing to finish off the invader that they just might have been persuaded to commence the Cole attack and 9-11 and others in their still ongiong terriorist campagn.

[Tex Pete]

Ummm, Quagmire was around before we ever invaded Iraq...

[listenhillary]

I like that!

[Mr. K]

Different War, Different situation completely

[armymarinemom]

[jennyjenny]

IBTZ??

[Non-Sequitur]

Well, was he wrong?

[darkangel82]

ibtz

[mnehrling]

Are you advocating a US war with Saudi Arabia?

All 15 trained in Florida and Nevada, I guess we have to do something about those States too... //sarc

Anyone who throws the Saudi straw man around completely loses credibility as there is a big difference between country of origin and national policy.

[tsmith130]

This account has been banned or suspended.

Damn...IATZ!

[WakeUpAndVote]

[Sloth]

You may be a troll, but you should not be labeled one just for posting the truth. I hadn’t seen this before, so thanks.

[dfwgator]

And guess what? Now that we are in Iraq, we now have more leverage to tell the Saudis to ‘F Off!’

[Joe 6-pack]

"All in all, conditions in 2003 were radically different - and the need to act was far more pressing than in 1993."

I agree; however, even IF things were exactly the same in '93 and '03, Cheney the SECDEF and Cheney the VP would most likely have different perspectives on the matter. A cabinet member's responsibility is to advise the Chief Executive on issues within the bailiwick of his/her department. The Chief Executive (and to a lesser extent, the VP as his deputy) have to weigh the input from all the cabinets and advisors in synthesizing policy positions and making decisions regarding any executive actions.